Quote:
to wax charitable for a minute, let's assume that the problem is logical:
the response: arguments from essence are stupid, lads.
they dont get you anywhere: they explain nothing, they illuminate nothing.
if we are not so charitable, the question of motivation becomes ugly indeed:
this because i see little difference between the kind of arguments they are pursuing above and those you see in the protocols of the elders of zion that attempt to "prove" the "evils" of judaism.
|
Nice, teetering on the line there RB. So you find that my arguments are stupid and do not deserve a response other than implying that I'm one of them.
I never said that Islam was evil, as your elders of zion allusion implied. I never said that Islam was worse than any other religion. I study it in about half of my classes with my major, I'm facinated by it. However, one only has to look at the Qur'an, Shari'a, and the Hadith to realize that the whole "religion of peace" only applies in instances in which Islam is the official religion. If you call subjegating and humiliting non-believers as peaceful than your arguments are logically stupid and dangerous. It's not a random quote, it was a command from Muhammad.
Lets say Bush today said such a thing. That we were to seek out all non-Christians, subjegate and humiliate them. Could we defend him saying that it was a "range of quotes ripped out of context"? No, because the context is clear. Such an argument could hold water if say, Jesus said to find the unbelievers and torture them into conversion. Instead, it was turn the other cheek, love everyone, etc. Muhammad set a pretext and was quoted as ordering Islam to conquor and THEN convert. Come on Roachboy, you usually have very well developed arguments. This whole shut your ears while you shout "no, you're stupid!" thing does not suit you.